Redcommander's 2010 Election Senate Results Timeline

[Ogre Mage]

11:50

Murray defeated in Washington
In what has been a close race tonight for Patty Murray, Fox News can now estimate that she has been defeated by King County Sheriff Sue Rahr. This is the tenth pickup for Republicans tonight. Rahr is leading with 51% of the vote in, 50-47. Currently the Senate composition is 50 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 2 Independents. Now if Republicans can pick up the Senate seat in California, where results have indicated the race as too close to call at the moment, and the open seat in Hawaii, then they will have regained control of the United States Senate narrowly. However they would still run into problems with control if a tied vote were to occur as the 2 independents caucus with the democrats.

lol this is so preposterous it has to be either a joke or a hallucination.

[Ogre Mage]

You're telling me Sue Rahr wouldn't be able to make a competitive race against Murray? Washington isn't as democratic as say California or New York, a Republican could win there statewide if they build enough support in King and Pierce Counties.

Yes, I am telling you that Sue Rahr would not be able to make a competitive race against Murray.  Any reasonable WA political commentator would laugh at such a notion.  The only offices that Republicans win county-wide in King County are Sheriff and Prosecutor.  They lose badly when they run for other offices.  I would point to the King County Executive race, held in an off-off election cycle, where Dow Constantine defeated Susan Hutchison 59-41.  The office of Sheriff and U.S. Senator are not even remotely similar.  A sheriff does not have to take positions on controversial social issues like abortion.  They do not have to explain complex federal legislation to constituents.

Murray has a massive name recognition advantage outside of King County and King County itself is extremely partisan toward Democrats, especially in U.S. Senate races. 

In 1992, Murray ran against Rep. Rod Chandler, a 5-term GOP congressman whose district included part of King County.  She defeated him 54%-46%.

In 1998, she ran against Rep. Linda Smith, a 2-term GOP congresswoman from SW Washington.  Murray defeated her 58%-42% and won 6 counties east of the Cascades (Rahr has no base in Eastern Washington either).

In 2004, she ran against Rep. George Nethercutt, a 5-term GOP congressman from Spokane.  She defeated him 55%-43%.

A poll from Feb. 2009 showed her defeating Attorney General Rob McKenna 55%-39% and Rep. Dave Reichert 53%-40%.  Both men have declined to run against Murray.

Do you really think Rahr is a more formidable candidate than any of these individuals?  If so, why?  Can you name a major non-partisan analyst who thinks Murray is vulnerable?  Why would Sheriff Rahr want to run against Murray when Murray got $1 million dollars for gang and youth violence prevention in King County?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=315022

[Ogre Mage]

I'm literally laughing out loud at the Washington nonsense going on in this thread.

It's almost as ridiculous as the California nonsense, except, because of some Rasmussen poll numbers that mean little showing Boxer under 50%, the CA nonsense has gone mainstream to the point where a deeply flawed candidate (Carlyfornia) and a far-rightwing uncompromising [but honest] nutjob (Devore) are considered credible against a candidate like Boxer, who, while not beloved, possesses the resources to fully capitalize on her opponents' flaws and thus win in a state that's as rightfully Democratic as Kansas is Republican.  

I don't like to deal with electoral issues so racially, but frankly, unless someone can at leas theorize how the GOP is going to recapture the minority vote, they will have a hard time winning federal races in CA until they can at least articulate it.  Putting it into practice is another thing, of course, but in order for the GOP to escape from ImaginationLand on the West Coast, they need to at least go through the motions of trying to win.

hee hee.  That is quite an accurate description of the state of both the CA and WA GOP.

For the record, I almost would like to see Carlyfornia run against Boxer, because it would be a high-profile contest with good entertainment value, probably ending with Carlyfornia's vehicle going dramatically over the cliff in Thelma & Louise like fashion.  Carlyfornia's biography is so open to attack (especially in this economy) that the partisan in me would like to see the attacks that Boxer (an experienced street fighter) would cook up.  I'm not familiar with Devore, but that would probably be a quieter race.  It seems Boxer has beaten those types before without much difficulty.

I'll try to respond to Badger's post later.

[Ogre Mage]

I'm literally laughing out loud at the Washington nonsense going on in this thread.

Not to give this fantasy thread any pantea of credibility, but I never realized Murray's electoral history has been so weak. She's broke 55% only once, and never 60%. I realize Washington's vote tends to be more polarized, but in a wave election......?

You are correct that Washington is very polarized.  By some measures we are one of the most polarized states in the nation.  However, that means Murray's base is polarized too and not open to persuasion from the other side.  After he lost, Nethercutt said, "There was an absolute protective network across the Puget Sound area that I don't think wanted to look at any other leadership options."  An oversimplification, but the statement has some truth to it.

It is extremely unusual for a senator to break 60% in Washington state -- Sen. Slade Gorton won 56%-44% in the Republican landslide year of 1994.  Murray has faced solid opposition (two of her opponents were 5-term Congressmen) and her 55%-43% beating of Nethercutt in a slightly Republican-leaning year is impressive by Washington state standards.  Cantwell's 2006 victory over McGavick (57%-40%) would be considered a full-scale blowout.

Murray probably would have lost had she been up for reelection in 1994, but she has grown much stronger and more entrenched since then.  She's a skilled retail politician and has strong support among the key Democratic constituencies in the state due to her solidly liberal voting record and advocacy.

Murray's other strong base of support is business.  This is largely due to her position as a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and isn't something she often talks about to her liberal base.  But Boeing, Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser are among her biggest donors.  Appropriations has perhaps been her most major area of concentration as senator.  My post about Murray's funding for the King County Sheriff's Office is a good example of the problem facing her potential opponents.  Many law enforcement officers might under other circumstances lean Republican.  But when Murray is providing that kind of funding for their office, it can change attitudes.  Hundreds of agencies across the state have been the beneficiary of her work.

So her potential Republican opponents are basically left with the staunch anti-government/tax crowd (a moderately powerful force in Washington state) and religious conservatives (very weak) for support.  That's not good enough for a victory here.  Her current potential opponents are political non-entities and while that might be enough to beat an incumbent who is unpopular in a wave election, Murray is not unpopular.

[Ogre Mage]

Yes, the polarization giving Murray a strong floor of support over 50% in all but a wave year is what I meant. Thanks for the in depth analysis, Ogre! I assume you believe that baring a 94 style wave Patty's safe (and possibly even then)?

You're welcome.  Murray is entrenched.  I don't see her becoming seriously vulnerable unless at least two of the following three factors emerge:

1.  A 1994 style Republican wave
2.  A Murray scandal which damages her approvals
3.  A top-tier challenger (say, Rob McKenna)

There is some chance that #1 might happen, but #2 and #3 are remote.  The WA GOP bench is extremely thin.  Murray's warchest is very formidable and her approvals are solid.  And she is not afraid to use her resources to define her opponents before they can get traction.  At this point, challenging her is a suicide mission.